corkcrumbs Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 I think it's a bit strange of him to say that the wiis future ain't bright because it lacks the technical prowess (prowess is that the word?) of the ps3 or 360... It's of course a fact that if sony and microsoft in the not too distant future lowered the price on their consoles a lot, they would start selling in the same quantities that nintendo is currently enjoying with the wii, probably even surpass wii on "units per month"... but nintendo can easily lower the price on their console as well, so it would probably still be a big difference between the three consoles, but of course, if sony and microsoft came into the same price range as the wii is currently in, it would still mean that they'd start selling a lot more consoles than they're doing now, and get a larger shunk of the market share. I still don't understand Perry, he's going on about how much gamers like pretty graphics... of course they do, but wii is catering to a larger market, the "non-gamers", and the "non-gamers" don't care much about pretty graphics, they want an accessible experience with easy controls (remote...), so I don't follow his logic, but of course, if he was talking about which console that would sell most to gamers in the future, well then he would of course be right. One thing that could prove him right though (if he meant "non-gamers" as well) would be the introduction of the eyetoy for the ps3 that can detect the players full body movement in 3D. Then you wouldn't even need a remote (although a remote makes some tasks easier: tennis etc.).
Cube Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Not all games care for realistic graphics, either. If the only thing that mattered was graphics, everyone would have a top-of-the-range PC.
blender Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 the wii will just get cheaper and cheaper. As soon as demand drops there will be a price-cut. I remember the smashfootball cube sellling for £50-£70. So I full expect the wii (gamecube 1.5 with cheaper CPU and Graphics chips) to be profitable at that price too. The infrared and motion control cost <$5 More of concern is that most games seem to suck apart from excite truck and RE5 etc look awesome
Hellfire Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 You mean Shiny's Dave Perry. Yeah, I really don't care about him.
corkcrumbs Posted July 19, 2007 Author Posted July 19, 2007 You mean Shiny's Dave Perry. Yeah, I really don't care about him. Yeah, Shiny's Dave Perry EDIT: did a bad joke here, so.. but I edited it now :P sorry
Jasper Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 The one thing I don't get is: why does everybody act as if Wii has incredibly outdated, butt-ugly graphics? Because the Wii focuses on the gameplay doesn't mean that they just added motion-sensing to a NES, does it? The graphics are still pretty good and gamers can't see the difference between PS3 and 360 without an HD tv. So, no I don't get Perry here. Everybody acts as if the Wii delivers graphics that gamers will truly hate. But the Wii has plenty of Horsepower to pull of some of the greatest graphics on a classic tv. Doesn't anyone think that, because of Nintendo focusing on the controller, people think the system has no graphics at all? The one thing Nintendo should have done, though, is make their nice Wii preview system (you know, the things in the retail that show footage of the Wii) with a ordinary resolution. They play the footage on a damned HD tv! That stretches the image and makes it blurry (from up close). So I do'nt get their marketing strategy. As if they want to show how bad the graphics look compared to the razor-sharp 360 next to it... Silly.
Mr.X Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Not all games care for realistic graphics, either. If the only thing that mattered was graphics, everyone would have a top-of-the-range PC. What I think Perry means is that basically even a game like Rachet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction or Viva Pinanta, don't have realistic graphics but they certainly are very stunning to look at. Rather than realistic graphics. No offence mate.
Cube Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Rather than realistic graphics. No offence mate. Wind Waker was stunning, too. And still is. That's more an artistic issue than hardware issue.
jammy2211 Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 I personally prefer a unique art style over realistic graphics, which is probably why I am looking forward to what the Wii can pull off in the future. You can put as much Ram and whatever in a PS3 or 360 but it's never going to make games look better then Wii games to me. Unfortunately I'm within the minority on this opinion, on the plus side Wii seems to have a much greater focus on this .
Mikey Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 I've been playing Mario Sunshine for a while now, (only got 7 more shines to get until I 100% it) and the graphics still look pretty good.
corkcrumbs Posted July 19, 2007 Author Posted July 19, 2007 if nintendo turned my metroid game idea into a game i would definitely buy a wii, definitely... and yeah, it wouldn't need 68 billion transistors to look cool, it would just need 1.. 1!!! u know like zork1, zork2 and all those other terrific games, it's alllll about artistic style and none about horsepower, do i like an alpha romeo bc it's a car with a lot of horsepower or because it's got style? huh? babaaa!
Zechs Merquise Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 People like Dave Perry don't like the Wii because it flies in the face of what they have been doing for the last 15 years or so! The problem is innovation is great, but it means you have to re-think things. That means more work for lazy developers. And who are Shiny these days? Earthworm Jim was ok, but eclipsed by Donkey Kong Country.
tapedeck Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 I don't know what to think of Dave Perry anymore. He was a highly respected individual in the 90's with his productions of Gamesworld and Shiny entertainments output. And he helped develop 'animotion' in titles like Cool Spot, Aladdin and finally Earthworm Jim. Yet his sheer arrogance for himself and towards other games developers means he is a deeply flawed individual. As someone who also took a complete hissy fit on Gamesmaster when falling from the snow slide on Mario 64's Cool, Cool mountain - I lost all respect for him. The old developed games were indeed good; and as a motivator and spokesperson for games, he is, no-doubt talented. Yet as an individual he states things which are so devoid of truths that it scares me to think that he is a success in the industry. He is a dinosaur yet as a developer he sticks only to where the 'most power' is. Whether that be the Megadrive, the PS1 or the XBOX360 or by using his business sense to make the Matrix trilogy. You've got talent Dave and by making your sweeping statements it seems your still as arrogant as ever.
KKOB Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Don't forget what the **** said about the DS. He loves the PSP and said he didn't know if nintendo were doing the right thing with the DS-tbf this was at E3 05 so . . .
khilafah Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 The one thing I don't get is: why does everybody act as if Wii has incredibly outdated, butt-ugly graphics? Because the Wii focuses on the gameplay doesn't mean that they just added motion-sensing to a NES, does it? The graphics are still pretty good and gamers can't see the difference between PS3 and 360 without an HD tv. So, no I don't get Perry here. Everybody acts as if the Wii delivers graphics that gamers will truly hate. But the Wii has plenty of Horsepower to pull of some of the greatest graphics on a classic tv. Doesn't anyone think that, because of Nintendo focusing on the controller, people think the system has no graphics at all? The one thing Nintendo should have done, though, is make their nice Wii preview system (you know, the things in the retail that show footage of the Wii) with a ordinary resolution. They play the footage on a damned HD tv! That stretches the image and makes it blurry (from up close). So I do'nt get their marketing strategy. As if they want to show how bad the graphics look compared to the razor-sharp 360 next to it... Silly. Not sure if this what you mean but are you saying that gamers can not see the difference between graphics on a PS3/360 compared to a Wii on SDTV? Even on SDTV the graphics still look better than Current Gen. I not sure why people say that they don't to be honest.
steggy Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 I don't know what to think of Dave Perry anymore. He was a highly respected individual in the 90's with his productions of Gamesworld and Shiny entertainments output. And he helped develop 'animotion' in titles like Cool Spot, Aladdin and finally Earthworm Jim. Yet his sheer arrogance for himself and towards other games developers means he is a deeply flawed individual. As someone who also took a complete hissy fit on Gamesmaster when falling from the snow slide on Mario 64's Cool, Cool mountain - I lost all respect for him. The old developed games were indeed good; and as a motivator and spokesperson for games, he is, no-doubt talented. Yet as an individual he states things which are so devoid of truths that it scares me to think that he is a success in the industry. He is a dinosaur yet as a developer he sticks only to where the 'most power' is. Whether that be the Megadrive, the PS1 or the XBOX360 or by using his business sense to make the Matrix trilogy. You've got talent Dave and by making your sweeping statements it seems your still as arrogant as ever. Thats a different Dave Perry, I made that mistake aswell when looking him up on Wikipedia earlier today.
corkcrumbs Posted July 19, 2007 Author Posted July 19, 2007 I just thought it was a strange statement.. I have nothing harsh to say about the guy.. thought earth worm jim was fun the short time I had with it.. and Shiny did some interesting experiments later on as well.. I don't agree with him, and also this thing with nintendo saying that they're not in competition with 360 and ps3, that's of course a honest statement, they mean that, but of course.. reality says otherwise, since they all want to attract the hardcore gamers out there that still buys most consoles and increasingly are becoming a larger group for every year. Nintendo aren't stupid.. if the wii at some point started to sell really bad compared to 360 and ps3 they would revise their strategy and probably ship a "wii 2" early with better graphics.. But I don't think nintendo looks at the console the same way sony and microsoft does.. wasn't the deal from the beginning that nintendo was just supposed to add the remote on to the gamecube as a peripheral? They just don't look at the console as the main factor, which sony and microsoft does, the main factor for nintendo is the things you use to interact with the games.. the game interface (or whatever you'd call / describe it :P ) That also means that it's easier for nintendo to just ditch a console like wii if it proves to be too "weak" for the gamers and hardcore gamers but still keep the remotes you had from the first wii and have the new console be backward compatible... what I'm getting at here is.. a lot of things.. but mainly that nintendo can replace their console with an "updated" version before the generation is old.. before the 10 year old life span... without any particular problem.. the consumers can't complain: after all they pay very little for the consoles.. a cool thing (or maybe not so cool) would be to ship the new console as "Wii 2.0".. boring name but funny considering what it implies... so that's just my point of view, I mean, nintendo wont be this radical since they wont need to.. but I'm just saying, they have a good escape plan.. :P
Jasper Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Not sure if this what you mean but are you saying that gamers can not see the difference between graphics on a PS3/360 compared to a Wii on SDTV? Even on SDTV the graphics still look better than Current Gen. I not sure why people say that they don't to be honest. Define 'better'. That's how they appear to be on an SDTV, but GameCube could pull these off on SDTV too. Let's take a different example in the 'better' approach. Windows Vista looks nice, doesn't it? It looks better than XP, doesn't it? Even if I install XP on a just-as-powerfull machina, Vista still looks slicker and nicer. And that's what videogames are doing, too. When Luigi's Mansion released it looked awesome. It has these almost-plastic visuals and that was awesome. Every game tried to get these visuals on their character models, becaause it looked smooth and cool. But now, everything has to shine like metal. And so, all the 'pretty' games that appear on all the consoles look shiny. That feels like they're giving better graphics, even though they don't really give 'better' graphics that the GameCube could pull off. The pop-style of the Videogame cuiture has changed.
Gaijin von Snikbah Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 I believe he will swallow his words. The Wii creates a new market. Why would that market buy any of the other consoles? Theres never been a console in the past who has dropped to last place after having sold the most units 6 months after launch. Why would that happend now?
Patch Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 It's of course a fact that if sony and microsoft in the not too distant future lowered the price on their consoles a lot, they would start selling in the same quantities that nintendo is currently enjoying with the wii, probably even surpass wii on "units per month"... That's right. It's a similar incontrovertible fact that if they lower the price of spinach, then it will start selling in the same quantities as chocolate.
Zechs Merquise Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 That's right. It's a similar incontrovertible fact that if they lower the price of spinach, then it will start selling in the same quantities as chocolate. Awesome logic there my friend, I couldn't have put it better!
corkcrumbs Posted July 20, 2007 Author Posted July 20, 2007 Awesome logic there my friend, I couldn't have put it better! f**k me apparently, but hey, I'm getting used to it... Make fun of me, but at a cost, since I know what I'm talking about... see, sony will actually be able to lower the price of the ps3 pretty quicky since more or less everything that's underneath the ps3 shell is made by sony, yes, the cell processor is almost solely sony, so they wont have to pay much royalties to other developers... hence, "in the not too distant future"... Ok? Are we happy, or do people still want to try and burn me? Underneath the wii hood I think, if I'm not wrong, it's almost only IBM.. i think, or maybe it was some other developer. Right now sony is taking a lot of money for the ps3 to pay for one time costs in constructing the big factories that shurn out the ps3s around the world, and the development cost for the cell processor... But sure, not regarding that, the ps3 is still a much more expensive machine to produce than the wii. But they will be able to lower the price of the machine significantly in the not too distant future.
rokhed00 Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 After Enter the Matrix Dave Perry has no right to say anything about anybody.
mcj metroid Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 he is one of those guys who banked on ps3 and is ratty that It didn't deliver the goods..... it's called a deperation prediction.. For desperate comments also check sony's lollipop comment.
Patch Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Ok? Are we happy, or do people still want to try and burn me? I'm not trying to burn you at all. Just taking a little dig at you. I apologise if I caused offence.
Recommended Posts